Did you ever wonder why when the government decides to increase spending it happens next week but when they talk about reducing spending it’s always in budget cycles five to ten years out? Does that really make any sense?
I really only care about what they will cut in their next budget and the one after that because there is some likelihood those same elected officials will still be around to be held accountable.
The Super Committee is agonizing about reducing spending somewhere in the neighborhood of $1.2 trillion over ten years. Considering the fact that federal spending increases 8% per year and that is considered a “no growth” budget. So what are they cutting the $1.2 trillion from?
Where else in the world could that happen?
If the budget is $2.4 trillion per year in 2011, then a no growth (8%more compounded) budget for 2012 would be about $2.6 trillion; $2.81trillion for 2013, $3.02 trillion for 2014 and on up to a total of about $37 trillion over the next ten years.
Remember, that is how much cash the federal government will spend over the next ten years when they consider an 8% increase in spending a no growth budget. They say they are trying to reduce spending by $1.2 trillion during that ten year period which amounts to about 3.2% of the $37 trillion. And they are agonizing?
I’d settle for a no growth budget being a zero percent increase year over year and no cuts. If they just capped spending at $2.4 trillion per year then over ten years we would only spend $24 trillion instead of $37 trillion.
Then if you consider that the government only takes in $1.8 trillion per year at the current level and that is not subject to the 8% growth rate. Generally a revenue growth rate of 3-4% is considered good and 5% is great. Let’s assume for this simple analysis a growth in revenue of 3.5% per year over the next ten years. Revenue received totals only $21.8 trillion when compounded.
Our current national debt is about $14 trillion and without reducing spending but actually increasing spending 8% year over year and experiencing 3.5% growth in revenue each year our national debt increases by another $15 trillion to about $29 trillion.
And the Super Committee is agonizing about cutting $1.2 trillion. There is also word that they are trying to make a “really big deal” and cut $4 trillion over ten years or slightly more than 10% of the $37 trillion total.
Could this discussion be any more absurd?
We need real spending cuts not a slowing of the growth rate.
If that weren’t bad enough, consider how you react when you are elected to Congress in 2016 and someone trots out this agreement to cut spending in some future budget cycle. Do you feel obligated to cut spending or kick the can to the next guy?
What happens if no future Congresses agree to make the cuts promised in 2011? What obligation does a future Congress have to honor agreements made by the Super Committee?
In a word; NONE.
It would be a good start to adopt a budget because that would indicate that the Senate finally came to the table. It would be better if we capped spending. It would be great if we could actually reduce spending.
I’m thinking I hear a kicking sound!
Occupy Pennsylvania Avenue!
by Steve DanaAfter watching the Occupy Wall Street protests for a couple weeks I really hoped the protester would do their thing for a while and then go home. Not so surprisingly the protesters are still at it.
Since I’ve confessed before to listening to Glenn Beck, I look for George Soros under every rock. And since Beck warned us many months ago this type of protest was coming, driven by left wing organizations funded by Soros it’s only disappointing that Beck was right. Craig’s List ads recruiting folks to be paid protesters is a good indicator they’re not there on principle; paid bail and legal aid for protesters who are arrested, who are encouraged to do illegal acts so they will be arrested and food brought in to feed the protesters paid for by someone else are a few examples.
As I watch it happening, listening to the television interviews of some of the protesters it’s clear many of them are there just for the experience; not because of anything specific but because they want to be a part of it. Who can blame young folks for following a pied piper who promises a good time if they will just join the crowd?
At the same time I’m also hearing folks complaining to Wall Street about the lack of jobs; or that Capitalism is the root of all evil. On the one hand they blame business for not creating a job for them then they demonize the system that can create jobs. It’s clear that Economics 101 was not one of the classes they took in college.
And since a goodly number of the protesters are unemployed recent college graduates angry and afraid because life is not fair they are looking for someone to blame. It’s unfortunate that American History and Government weren’t classes they took either since then they might understand the role of government in our economic system.
I’m disappointed that college educated young people, out of ignorance, are focusing their anger on the system that could be their salvation. I’m disappointed that these kids are paying for an education but getting a meaningless diploma; and pay they will even if there are no jobs.
Which brings me to…
Many of the protesters didn’t pay for their educations yet, they borrowed the money to go to college and now that they are out, their lenders are expecting to be repaid.
The economy has been in the tank for three or four years now so these recent graduates should’ve had an inkling that the competition for jobs would be fierce yet they still went heavily into debt to get an education with little likelihood of getting a job when they graduated. And now, they are angry? Help me understand, what job you are hoping to land when you get your degree in Women’s Studies or Art History? Shouldn’t a job or career be a consideration for students if their “education” requires they take on so much debt?
Nobody forced them to borrow the money and maybe prudence might have suggested that in a recession they might choose a more conservative strategy but like some of their career choices poor judgment was wide spread and now they want to blame someone else.
It’s time for these kids to understand that the crappy economy has been crappy for all of us. You don’t have to be unemployed to understand the plight of Americans today, young and old. Many of us have learned the brutal lesson that when we make bad choices there is a reckoning; but we step up, we take our medicine and we move on.
If the protesters are serious about changing things so they will have jobs in the future they need to ask the companies they hoped would hire them why they don’t have jobs for them and listen carefully to their answers. More likely than not, the culprit will be too much government. Then the protesters can decide whether they are protesting in the right places. If you can’t figure out which companies to ask, you probably got your degree in the wrong field!
American businesses would like nothing better than to have jobs for every young person graduating from college today because that would signal that our government has gotten off their backs and the economy is moving productively again. If only we could convince the government to get with the program.
Posted in Political commentary, Regulatory Reform | Leave a Comment »